politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If such a thing does not incite mass revolt, I cannot imagine anything ever would.
Why would retired old people suddenly riot? They will call their social security rep and wait for hours on hold while they watch Jeopardy and cable news that tells them rioting is bad and only criminals do that.
The imagery is compelling.
Elderly people slowly starving while watching game shows and calling an anonymous entity in the hope of salvation. Reminds me of a certain movie, though that one wasn't even about politics, just addiction. One could argue that many people are addicted to outrage, misinformation, fear and hate today - maybe it's not such a difference in the end.
Between Social Security Insurance and Supplemental Income, there’s about 70 million recipients (holy wow - just shy of 20% of the U.S. population). Most of them are elderly, sure - but not all, and not all of those elderly will be infirm.
The way I see it is if these checks don’t come in April, we’ll start to see protests as the winter weather fades into spring.
I think a lot of folks feel disempowered by the system. Voting doesn’t work. And even when voting does work, the political parties seem to have their own agenda that is divorced from their purported constituents, their promises, and even reality. (Purported, because we know that voters are just the vehicle, but money is the fuel under our current system. The constituents they claim to have are not the constituents they serve.) Beyond that, they’re slapping felony convictions onto college kids who protested a genocide. Even if you want to soften the language, they were protesting violence in a nonviolent way, and they are going to have their entire lives impacted by criminal charges for expressing their ‘right’ to freedom of speech. Add in that a lot of folks are trapped in media bubbles and don’t even realize there are problems, or if they realize there are problems, they don’t really recognize their severity. And as we’ve repeatedly seen, Trump does not see justice, and there are no advocates for democracy or the rule of law. The only person that a lot of people felt was ‘on their side’ was Luigi Mangione, and failing attempts to paint him as a terrorist, the media has done their best to quash coverage of him to erase him from the national consciousness. The deck is clearly stacked in every which way.
So I mean, the consequences are dire, the impact of Trump’s actions are not yet being felt broadly or acutely enough yet, and it’s frankly kind of shitty outside, so no one wants to go stand in freezing temps, cold rain, or ceaseless winds for no gain, and incredible peril. I hate to serve up excuses, but I think the situation will have to get much worse before people are driven to action.
Oh, we are definitely getting protests. But, will we see riots? Will we see people taking control of their workplaces? Will people start growing their own food and shopping at farmer’s markets instead of grocery chains? The only people who have the ability to dismantle the vestiges of power that control them are the people themselves.
Because many of their children and grandchildren would pick up the slack.
People are already struggling just to get by. Imagine suddenly having to house, feed, and/or care for an elderly person on top of that.
More than one i would bet in a lot of cases. If it 100% dries up between me and my partner we may have to help up to 6 or more people between parents, grandparents, and aunts/uncles.
I don't know specifically about elderly people, but I have heard it said that historically, people who cannot afford to eat have a higher chance of overthrowing their government.
And so it is often in a government's interest to have some sort of social programs that provide food security.
Historically, there have been riots during the Great Depression where people raided grocery stores. But, hey, homeless people and poor single parents have been doing this for years and are called criminals for doing so.
These people will need to be okay with being considered criminals if they truly wish to riot and change things, but they’ve spent decades voting to put people who do those things in jail.
I mean, I guess if the only people who ever rioted were those personally affected you'd be right. Not really able to see it that way, myself.
Sorry, but you should. Historically, the only people who have ever rioted were people who were directly affected by said issues. If they can successfully be convinced that Daddy Government is going to fix everything while demonizing the actual protestors on the streets, you get decades of stagnation.
I’d love for you show me any counter examples in history.
If I mention the Floyd protests are we going to start splitting hairs about what makes a protest vs a riot?